Written by Winter Trabex.

While South American economies all throughout the continent suffers downturns and collapses- particularly Venezuela- many people in America remain oblivious to the dangers of socialism. Socialism is a political and economic philosophy which overtly expresses concern for poor people all over the world but which in practice establishes tyrannical central control of all a country’s economy, which includes its food, transportation, speech, information, and entertainment. It is an ethos which seeks to reward those who do not produce goods or services in the marketplace while punishing those who do produce goods and services. If a country could be a person, socialism would be a form of self-mutilation performed under the belief that others benefit from the mutilation.

For both people and countries, this not the case. No other person benefits when an individual cuts off his arm. Rather, as that person’s ability to engage in economic activity is reduced, the impact for society is negative. A country that does likewise by confiscating wealth or seizing control of private enterprises does its citizens no favors. Though the ostensible reasons for doing so are always proclaimed to be maintaining public order and public safety, the result is, more often than not, chaos. Socialism is nothing more than chaos unleashed upon the population, with a smile.

That many Americans are unable to learn from the lessons of history- to say nothing of the lessons of the present- highlights a deeply-rooted ignorance of economic theory. This is most evident in the public discourse surrounding the funding, or defunding, of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood receives government subsidies in order to provide sexual health services to underprivileged people, most often women. Ever since the bill to defund the organization was put forward before Congress, PP’s Facebook page has been a propaganda machine telling the public that all the services they provide will cease to exist if they are defunded. There was no mention of the organization operating on a for-profit or non-profit basis apart from the public. At present, Planned Parenthood is engaging in the most common of socialist fallacies: the assumption that people deserve certain services.

Unknown to the leadership of PP, the only measure of deservedness comes from whether a person can pay for what he or she wishes to have. Those who say that Planned Parenthood cannot operate as an independent organization fail to observe that medical costs have risen drastically over the years as government has interfered more and more in the practice of medicine. Soon, it will transpire that people will only have two options when they want to see a doctor: get the government to pay for it, or go without. Given the American government’s tendency to mismanage its money, it is a very dangerous proposition to turn over fiscal responsibility for one’s personal health to a group of politicians and bureaucrats.

Rather than campaigning to get the government out of healthcare, PP instead clings to their subsidies. This of necessity makes them a political, rather than medicinal, organization. Lobbying and campaigning become more important than serving the people who wish to receive their services. That the public image of the organization is one of conflicting opinions only serves to underline their backwards approach to business. By receiving taxpayer funds, they are forcing taxpayers to subsidize activities with which they might disagree. Even if those activities are nothing more than comprehensive sexual education, it is still an immoral act. Taxation causes people to surrender their own money for projects they would never support were they given the choice. The issue of abortion aside, it can be well understood why so many people have so much antipathy for Planned Parenthood.

Because it is more convenient for them to do, the people who run PP choose to dicker with the government, rather than the public. If they ever chose to operate on a for-profit basis, they would have to take the risk of people rejecting their company by voting with their feet. They would have to risk going out of business. Government subsidies save them from this problem so that, as long as their services are conducted within the regulations provided to them, they can stay in business. Since the tendencies which compel politicians to vote in favor of funding have far more to do with a socialist desire to help the poor, it must be asked why the organization does not simply reject government money in favor of striking out on their own to succeed or fail by their own efforts. Just like a welfare addict who would rather visit the welfare office every so often than work for themselves, Planned Parenthood is choosing dependence over independence.

America’s love of socialism is extending even further towards presidential Bernie Sanders who, during the height of the Occupy Wall Street movement, regularly spoke in an empty chamber of Congress for the benefit of C-SPAN about how rich people should have their money confiscated. He did not use such terms, of course. He talked at length about income inequality, which arises naturally as a result of differences between individuals. The only way to make people economically equal is to make everyone (except government workers) poor. It is impossible for government at any level to grant wealth to its citizens. Wealth must be earned. Confiscation of wealth, even while performed upon those who themselves confiscated it, does nothing to raise the standard of living for people everywhere in the country, or the world. As a socialist, Bernie Sanders does not understand this. If elected president, he will likely preside over the most popular and spectacular economic crash that ever was.

All of this is plainly observable, so long as one observes reality without any bias. Compassion for others, while lauded as a virtue, often produces results contrary to those which are sought. If America ever does become a fully socialist country, instead of the corporatist oligarchy it is today, the change will come at the expense of the majority of the country’s businessmen. Products will disappear from store shelves. Food will become scarce. Lives that are today comfortable will tomorrow become unbearable.

These are the results that will occur as a result of America’s preference for socialism. These are the results that were visible in Soviet Russia for decades prior to its collapse, and which are now occurring in Venezuela. Those who would embrace socialism, even as a means to support a health care organization or a new political leader, embrace their own disenfranchisement and destruction. Those who support socialism, whether in part or in whole, support an unsustainable way of dealing with life that is based upon a toxic moral ethic.

America- and the rest of world- would be better off if people would examine the evidence before their eyes before convincing themselves that capitalism is the problem. Even while surrounded by more luxury and more ease than was ever known at any point in history, Americans today still believe that fiscal jealousy is a sufficient reason to unleash all the horrors upon the earth that come with socialist policies. That a rich man is rich has no bearing on whether a poor man is poor. It is far more likely that a poor man has made bad choices, or has lived in an area with heavy government regulation. Anyone who finds themselves concerned over the state of poor people would be far better off supporting a free market economy. Only trading for mutual advantage can raise the standard of life for the impoverished. Every other system conceivable to the human mind has been tried. No other system has ever worked.


If you enjoyed this article, you can follow more of Winter on Liberty.me and check out her new book The Substance of Liberty: Freedom in an Unfree World. Please consider sending a BTC tip to Winter at: 1ACwZKrUPbZ5XWB3jEuTAsi8SrgeZftbxx